Friendly outgoing eclectic agnostic seeks one gram of soul
Looks like YouTube is taking submissions for an upcoming presidential candidate debate.
I can’t imagine the atheist community would have anything important to confront them about? (*cough* evolution *cough*) Anyone skilled with a camera, and able to present a good case in 30 seconds or so?
If you’ve got some ideas, check out http://www.youtube.com/debates
(via Slashdot)
58% of USAians don’t realise that people might try and scam them online, and probably trust everything they get via email. In other news, 55% of USAians believe that God created humans in their present form.
Anybody see the correlation?
(Via The Consumerist)
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Update: a reply! Supposedly, my comments were blocked by a rule which removes posts with more than two links. Given both my comments1 only had one link, this seems unlikely.
Just to being with, I’ll just say that in general, I don’t agree with Atheistic evangelism. I get really pissed off when Christians (I only single them out because no one else has ever tried to convert me, but I’m sure they’re not the only evangelists) don’t understand that I have no interest in joining their religion (or any other, for that matter). It is for exactly that reason that I disagree with atheists doing exactly the same thing. I don’t care if we’re right - I’ll happily debate with someone, and explain my position, but I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone else should necessarily share my views. Before you say “why are you giving these religious people so much respect?” (as I’m sure many Dawkinians might), I would treat peoples political beliefs or choice of ice cream flavours in exactly the same way. “You don’t like rocky road? But what could possibly be better than the mix of smooth sticky marshmallow with crunchy nuts?” … “You don’t like nuts? Well ok, then…”.
I’ve had three discussions/arguments with various Christians/creationists recently2, two of which have been quite interesting, and possibly even productive.
That said, blatantly stupid comments still draw my ire - fine - be religious, believe in a personal God. I’ll disagree with you, but it’s still your right. Claiming that “we’re working on it” is not a better answer than “goddidit”, and you’ll get my argumentative juices flowing. Further trying to claim a law professor is somehow an expert in evolutionary biology, and even further that biology is not a natural science is beyond me.
I can’t imagine (note: sarcasm) why the Gay Conservative didn’t post my most recent comment3:
Last time I checked, biology IS a natural science.
Secondly, if you want to quote someone reputable about evolutionary biology, an ex-Berkley law professor4 is not my idea of a credible source… Find me a reputable biologist (or even a reputable scientist in a related field), and I might take more notice…
Did I have a point? Was I too argumentative? Feel free to read through the comments on Gay Conservative’s post, and see if anyone else can get their comments published.
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
I found an interesting article today about why some people resist science, and what these authors suggest is that distrust in science can be traced back to how science and alternative views are presented to children.
Essentially, in matters for which we are unable to understand and evaluate the facts for ourselves, we try to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source.
Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it.1
It seems only natural, and a perfectly valid way of making up your opinions about things. The problem occurs when we don’t know what sources to trust.
(Scientific claims) clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.1
If our own political leaders (Well, thankfully not my political leaders to the same degree - although he did seem a little iffy on global warming for quite a while) show an inherent distrust of science, and people are brought up to believe the church is a reputable source of scientific knowledge, is it any wonder that there’s so much distrust of science?
I’ve read suggestions by scientists that claim that it’s simply not worth arguing with creationists in public forums because those who listen to the creationists already distrust science, and nothing they say (no matter how rational) will convert them. Maybe we need to start earlier? I read a post the other day (dammed2 if I could find it again - help me out if you know what I’m talking about) that suggested the idea of creating a textbook for use in school which rationally outlined the creationist vs. evolution debate in an easy-to-understand yet scientifically accurate way. Maybe if we can help establish that scientists are the ones who should be trusted when it comes to scientific matters3, and not politicians or the church.
(Via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
Atheist Manifesto by Michel Onfray
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us
·
XHTML
·
CSS
Powered by His Noodly Appendage
Posts